output_formatter

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Format and display results' but does not state side effects, idempotency, or whether it requires user interaction. The description is too vague.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence of 13 words, concise and front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without fluff, though could include a tiny bit more context without harming conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple display tool with well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks details on what happens after formatting (e.g., user presentation vs. return value) and does not leverage sibling context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond listing example formats. The baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool formats and displays results in HTML, JSON, tables, or other formats, which matches the input schema's format enum. It distinguishes itself from more specific sibling render tools by being generic, though it could explicitly mention that.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like specific render tools (e.g., render_html). No usage context or exclusion criteria are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.